Wetlands

, Volume 37, Issue 2, pp 363–369 | Cite as

History and Current Status of Invasive Nutria and Common Muskrat in Korea

  • Yeong-Seok Jo
  • Jonathan J. Derbridge
  • John T. Baccus
Review Article

Abstract

Nutria, or coypu (Myocastor coypus), were introduced to South Korea in 1985 and became an invasive species in the late 1990s. Despite being limited to the Nacdong River system, the nutria population is well established there. The common muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) invaded North Korea via the Russian and Chinese borders during the 1960s, but the species is still confined to the extreme northeastern portion. In South Korea, muskrats were introduced in 2005. Although muskrat farms are not commercially viable, they have increased. Since 2009, local and federal governments have tried to remove nutria using trappers and bounty hunting. From 2011 to 2015, 11,258 nutrias were removed but a sustainable population still exists. Although complete nutria removal has been achieved in other countries, the eradication campaign in South Korea has not been strictly modeled on these successes. Despite the concern about muskrats, prevention against their possible release has never been implemented. We present the history of nutria and muskrat in Korea and examine the current eradication projects. We propose that unified science-based eradication strategies would be the most likely to succeed, and urge the South Korean government to initiate management designed to avert potentially harmful ecosystem effects of invasive muskrats.

Keywords

Eradication Invasive species Korea Muskrat Nutria 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank to Mr. Ki-Cheol Oh for data of Nutria eradication. We appreciate anonymous reviewers and the editorial board of WETLANDS for valuable suggestions and comments. The editor Dr. M. L. Otte and two reviewers helped improve and clarify this manuscript.

References

  1. Baker S (2006) The eradication of coypus (Myocastor coypus) from Britain : the elements required for a successful campaign. In: Koike F, Clout MN, Kawamichi M et al (eds) Assessment and control of biological invasion risk. Shoukadoh Book Sellers, Kyoto, pp 142–147Google Scholar
  2. Baker S, Clarke CN (1988) Cage trapping coypus (Myocastor coypus) on baited rafts. Journal of Applied Ecology 25:41–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertolino S, Perrone A, Gola L (2005) Effectiveness of coypu control in small Italian wetland areas. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:714–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bos D, Ydenberg R (2011) Evaluation of alternative management strategies of muskrat Ondatra zibethicus population control using a population model. Wildlife Biology 17:143–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carter J, Leonard BP (2002) A review of the literature on the worldwide distribution, spread of, and efforts to eradicate the coypu (Myocastor coypus). Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:162–175Google Scholar
  6. Crooks JA, Soule ME (1999) Lag times in population explosions of invasive species: causes and implications. In: Sandlund OT, Schei PJ, Viken A (eds) Invasive species and biodiversity management. Kluwer Academic Publication, Dordercht, pp 103–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gosling LM, Baker S (1989) The eradication of muskrats and coypus from Britain. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 38:39–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gosling LM, Baker SJ, Skinner JR (1983) A simulation approach to investigating the response of a coypu population to climatic variation1. EPPO Bulletin 13:183–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Groom G (1997) New perfume handbook, 2nd edn. Springer Science & Business Media, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  10. Holt RD, Barfield M, Gomulkiewicz R (2005) Theories of niche conservatism and evolution: could exotic species be potential test? Species invasions: insight into ecology, evolution, and biogeography. pp 259–290Google Scholar
  11. Hong S, Do Y, Kim JY, Kim DK, Joo GJ (2015) Distribution, spread and habitat preferences of nutria (Myocastor coypus) invading the lower Nakdong River, South Korea. Biological Invasions 17:1485–1496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jeong HH, Park YO (1996) Research on ecology and exploit of bullfrog. Gwanju-Jeonnam 21st Century development 42:56–59Google Scholar
  13. Jojola SM, Witmer GW, Nolte DL (2005) Nutria: an invasive rodent pest or valued resource? Proceedings of the 11th Wildlife Damage Management Conference, pp 120–126Google Scholar
  14. Jojola SM, Witmer GW, Burke PW (2009) Evaluation of attractants to improve trapping success of nutria on Louisiana Coastal Marsh. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1414–1419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ju JS (2007) Extractive method of musk from living muskrat. Bulletin of Academy of Science, DPRK 43:55–56Google Scholar
  16. Jung JW, Jo YS (2012) A preliminary study of genetic structure and relatedness analysis of Nutria (Myocastor coypus) in Upo Wetland. Journal of Species Research 1:100–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kang EJ, Yoon CH (1994) The settlement and distribution of the introduced bullfrog, Rana catesbeinan Shaw in Korea. Bulletin of the Korean Association for Conservation of Nature 13:231–250Google Scholar
  18. Kim GJ (1988) On the distributional type of Korean mammals. Bulletin of Academy of Science, DPRK 36:37–39Google Scholar
  19. Ko PJ, An CJ (2003) Increase of musk yield from muskrat (Ondatra zibethica) and extension of musk extraction period. Bulletin of Academy of Science, DPRK 41:55–56Google Scholar
  20. KOSIS (2015) The number of animal and farm in each province by livestock species from 1983 to 2015. http://kosis.kr/statisticsList/statisticsList_01List.jsp?vwcd=MT_ZTITLE&parmTabId=M_01_01. Accessed 17 Sep 2015
  21. Lee DH, Kil JH, Yang BG (2012) Ecological characteristics for the sustainable management of Nutria (Myocastor coypus) in Korea. National Institute of Environmental Research, IncheonGoogle Scholar
  22. Mach JJ, Poche RM (2002) Task III. Nutria control in Louisiana. In: Genesis Laboratories Inc (ed) Nutria (Myocastor coypus) in Louisiana. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Wellington, pp 108–155Google Scholar
  23. Mun S, Nam KH, Kim CG, Chun YJ, Lee HW, Kil JH, Lee JC (2013) Suggestions for the improvement of the Invasive alien species management in Korea - a comparative analysis of the legal framework for invasive alien species between Japan and Korea. Environmental Policy 6:35–54Google Scholar
  24. NIE (2015) The study on the inhabitation status of nutria (Myocastor coypus). National Institute of Ecology, SeocheonGoogle Scholar
  25. NIER (2006) A study of detailed survey on invasive alien species in Korea and designation of invasive Alien species in foreign countries. National Institute of Environmental Research, IncheonGoogle Scholar
  26. NIER (2011) Alien species in Korea. National Institute of Environmental Research, IncheonGoogle Scholar
  27. Ognev SI (1948) Mammals of the U.S.S.R. and adjacent countries, Vol. VI. Rodents, English tr. Smithsonian Institution, JerusalemGoogle Scholar
  28. Park EC, Ju JS (2000) The effect of different nutrition on growth and reproduction of muskrat. Bulletin of Academy of Science, DPRK 38:47–48Google Scholar
  29. Philip GS, Erickson JLE (1942) American musk.I. The chemical constitution of the musk of the Louisiana Muskrat. Journal of the American Chemical Society 64:144–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sheail J (1988) The extermination of the muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) in inter-war Britain. Archives of Natural History 15:155–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shim JH (2005) Research on factors affecting decline of bullfrog. Ministry of Environment, GwacheonGoogle Scholar
  32. Ward JP, van Dorp DA (1981) The animal musks and a comment of their biogenesis. Experientia 37:917–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Won HK (1968) The mammals of Korea. Institute of Science Press, PyongyangGoogle Scholar
  34. Won CM, Smith KG (1999) History and current status of mammals of the Korean Peninsula. Mammal Review 29:3–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of Biological ResourcesMinistry of EnvironmentIncheonSouth Korea
  2. 2.Natural Resources ManagementTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA
  3. 3.School of Natural Resources and EnvironmentUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations